bak_get_opendata

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, confirming safe read behavior. The description adds that it returns metadata with formats and download URLs, providing more detail than annotations alone.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with 'Args' and 'Returns' sections, front-loading the main purpose. It is concise but could be slightly shorter without losing clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the output schema exists, the description still provides a clear return structure and use cases. It covers purpose, parameters, and return format comprehensively for a read-only query tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The parameter 'query' is documented in both the schema and the description with a clear description. The description outlines the return structure, adding value beyond the schema, though schema coverage is actually good.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it lists open data datasets from the Federal Office of Culture on opendata.swiss, including metadata and download URLs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on ISOS or other categories.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description mentions relevance for GIS integration and data analysis, implying usage context but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.